January 26, 2008

Here and here. I was going to mention it yesterday, but it's a travel weekend for me and, also, I found it boring.

I do find it amusing that as I was typing the previous sentence — in this restaurant, The Driskill Grill, where I'm eating breakfast — I overheard a man at the next table say: "I like Obama. I like Edwards. I don't like Hillary Clinton."

From the Times:

Senator John McCain of Arizona is the only Republican who promises to end the George Bush style of governing from and on behalf of a small, angry fringe.

Why does that apply to Mitt Romney, who doesn't seem like the angry type? I think we could sort all the candidates — from both parties — by the level of their emotional heat. Giuliani and McCain are hot. Romney and Huckabee are cool. Hillary Clinton and John Edwards are hot. Barack Obama is cool.

To be fair, the NYT referred not to the emotional style of the candidate, but to the emotional quality of some "small" "fringe" that a President would govern "from and on behalf of." But how does that apply to Romney? Here's their disqualification of Romney:

Mitt Romney’s shape-shifting rivals that of Mr. Giuliani. It is hard to find an issue on which he has not repositioned himself to the right since he was governor of Massachusetts. It is impossible to figure out where he stands or where he would lead the country.

Shape-shifting? In other words: flexibly and pragmatically bending one way or another in an effort to respond to constituents. Isn't that exactly the opposite of "of governing from and on behalf of a small, angry fringe"?

The NYT rhetoric is absolutely incoherent.

Ha, ha, suddenly I don't find the NYT endorsements boring at all. It must be these Texas scrambled eggs and sausage fortifying me.

So let's see why we're supposed to like Hillary Clinton more than Barack Obama. If the idea is to get away from "governing from and on behalf of a small, angry fringe," isn't Obama perfect?

Mr. Obama has built an exciting campaign around the notion of change, but holds no monopoly on ideas that would repair the governing of America. Mrs. Clinton sometimes overstates the importance of résumé. Hearing her talk about the presidency, her policies and answers for America’s big problems, we are hugely impressed by the depth of her knowledge, by the force of her intellect and by the breadth of, yes, her experience.

Oh, now it's all about experience and expertise.

Why worry about governing "from and on behalf of a small, angry fringe" when it's your small, angry fringe?

Ah, but in the end, will that person vote for Hillary anyway? That's the only thing she is (or should be) concerned with. If the answer is yes (obviously depending on the options in November), no problem for her. If the answer is no, problem.

I think they had to think of something palatable to say about why they support McCain, other than the fact he has hired Juan Fernandez, open borders advocate, for his "foundation" which is supported by the likes of The Tides and which sponsors such fun events as a kids' border wall protest coloring contest.

"In 2006, however, Mr. McCain stood up for the humane treatment of prisoners and for a ban on torture. But Mr. McCain took a stand, just as he did in recognizing the threat of global warming early.

He has been a staunch advocate of campaign finance reform, working with Senator Russ Feingold, among the most liberal of Democrats, on groundbreaking legislation, just as he worked with Senator Edward Kennedy on immigration reform."

Downtown Lad sez: "Romney is definitely angry. His ENTIRE campaign is built upon how much he hates gay people."

This analysis is a perfect expression of how hate is used by the left. Anyone on the right that has a policy disagreement with those of the left are free to label it hate. In the process they also demonstrate their own level of tolerance to policy discussions.

Sorry bigot Robert. Romney used to be very moderate on gay issues. But he knew that he couldn't win the Republican nomination like that - so he basically has built his entire campaign on 1) Making gay people second class citizens 2) Constantly attacking them with veiled references to "family" and 3) Advocating their imprisonment for having sex in the privacy of their own home through the repeal of Lawrence V. Texas.

You can be a bigot all you want Robert - but stop LYING about it by trying obfuscate the truth by saying you'r not. You hate gay people. Romney hates gay people. And you want them imprisoned, So stop pretending otherwise.

Sorry bigot Robert. Romney used to be very moderate on gay issues. But he knew that he couldn't win the Republican nomination like that - so he basically has built his entire campaign on 1) Making gay people second class citizens 2) Constantly attacking them with veiled references to "family" and 3) Advocating their imprisonment for having sex in the privacy of their own home through the repeal of Lawrence V. Texas.

You can be a bigot all you want Robert - but stop LYING about it by trying obfuscate the truth by saying you'r not. You hate gay people. Romney hates gay people. And you want them imprisoned, So stop pretending otherwise.

Ann asked:"If the idea is to get away from 'governing from and on behalf of a small, angry fringe,' isn't Obama perfect?"

Assuming that one takes seriously "small angry fringe" as identifying a neutral standard -- the "small, angry fringes of both parties" rather than as a term of art for "conservatives" -- then yes, if one took at face value Obama's rhetoric that we will do the converse. But what basis do we have for doing so, despite the lack of any serious reason to believe he will govern in any substantive way differently to any of the other Dem candidates? I've yet to see any indication that substantively Obama is anything but firmly in the mine run of liberal politicians. He talks about wanting to bring the country together, but he means to accomplish that by having those who disagree with him be silent. There's just no credible basis for saying that he will be any more effective at lowering partisan temperatures than Clinton, so apart from a strike against him for sheer dishonesty, I don't see how that distinguishes him, while she at least would be competent in implementing her agenda and would be a massive "fuck you" to our enemies. If you really have to pick a Democrat this year, there's a clear choice.

MadisonMan said..."I don't understand why changing one's position on a topic is a bad thing. The world evolves, why shouldn't opinions?"

One thinks of course of Keynes, who famously said that "when the facts change, I change my mind - what do you do?" But as Jon Chait aptly put it, "[e]veryone's allowed one genuine intellectual conversion experience, but after that number goes above one, people start assuming the person's either crazy or extremely politically expedient."

Hearing her talk about the presidency, her policies and answers for America’s big problems, we are hugely impressed by the depth of her knowledge, by the force of her intellect and by the breadth of, yes, her experience.

The arching NYTimes narrative they are trying to help out is Bob Dole vs. the Clintons II.

Hapless old warhorse eaten for lunch by the Clinton machine. And while Hillary is no Bill Clinton, John McCain is no well-liked, trusted, respected by all Republicans, and intelligent Bob Dole.

The Times has long been McCains biggest booster for his "courage to stand up to the Republicans, for his "bold" separate path with Ted Kennedy, Feingold, Schumer...And were among the 1st supporting Hillary as inevitable.

Even though they slowly came on board in admitting Hillary has little formal experience and isn't exactly "brilliant" - (failed DC Bar Exam, no litigation experience, no law articles in 35 years, no security clearance, one formal assignment - Hillarycare - badly muffed, etc...) - they are ignoring their own articles in this endorsement:

the depth of her knowledge!!!

She has amassed a lot of knowledge by her methodical diligence...but she reminds me of some of those mailman Jeopardy champs that sweep for weeks. You wonder about them: "Shouldn't you have done more on your own?"

By the force of her intellect!!!

No major contributions to the legal profession other than being a female appointed to Boards after a Bill Clinton phone call? Failed DC Bar exam she kept secret 30 years? She may be a lot smarter than McCain, but she isn't likely any brighter than Edwards or Obama, and she sure isn't a Bill Clinton or a Romney...

And by the breadth of, yes, her experience!!!!

In minor staffing decisions and managing the Bimbo Eruption Crisis Team? What else does she have?

************Downtownlad - Your 6-7 posts just show you are wrapped up in your homo-hood, while no one else cares. Maybe you could start a gay victimology blog. But no one would come to read it...

As for gay rights. Romney is pretty well where he was back in the early 90s. For civil unions and no hiring discrimination. The change is Ted Kennedy and many Dems "flip-flopping" in their chase for gay dollars and Hollywood donor's agenda and moving well to the Left of where they were in the early 90s, which was anti-civil unions and lining up to support Bill Clinton's "Don't ask, don't tell"

As for gay rights. Romney is pretty well where he was back in the early 90s. For civil unions and no hiring discrimination. The change is Ted Kennedy and many Dems "flip-flopping" in their chase for gay dollars and Hollywood donor's agenda and moving well to the Left of where they were in the early 90s, which was anti-civil unions and lining up to support Bill Clinton's "Don't ask, don't tell"

Good point, Romney hasn’t changed his mind on “gay rights,” he’s pretty much kept the same position he always had, it’s just being in favor of “gay rights” in 1994 meant something entirely different then (like supporting DADT) then it does today.

Which reminds me of something else, for all of the talk about how Romney has supposedly “flip-flopped” (which I don’t think is an applicable term unless you really are going back and forth as opposed to just changing in one direction), the only issues I see that he’s changed on are (a) abortion (progressing from being nominative pro-choice to no change in Massachusetts laws quo to pro-life) and (b) arguably guns (unless his position is that he thinks that States should be able to ban assault weapons but he doesn’t favor federal legislation).

For people for whom abortion and gun rights are the only or the primary issues, there are fair questions to be asked (and from what I’ve can tell, he’s answered them). But for the other 99+% of issues – taxes, cutting government spending, improving America’s economic competitiveness, school choice, winning the War, entitlement reform, etc. he’s been as consistent as you can in terms while adapting to some changing facts rather than changing his position as easily as some candidates change their accent.

If you take out the word "angry" (a word the NYT is required to use when describing Republicans, per their severance agreement with Anthony Lewis), the rest of the sentence holds up, actually.

Bush governs today with the support of a "small fringe." By definition. He's a 31 percent president.

Republicans should be thinking about, who can build on that number enough to overcome the Democratic candidate? It certainly isn't Romney, the fattest target for an opposition campaign I've seen since John Kerry. Not Huckabee. Probably not Giuliani. Only McCain has that potential.

At this point, the GOP nominating anyone but McCain is a suicide note.

Which economic theory has been disproven? Are they supporting higher taxes and higher spending? What did President Bush do wrong on September 11th? He gave a great speech that day and soon after his approval rating was over 70%.

I think they are exactly right about Mitt Romney. In 2006, Romney said he supported McCain and the president on a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants, but now he is opposed to it. Just a few weeks before he left office as governor, he signed a bill allowing the police to crack down on illegal immigration. It was quickly overturned by his successor. During his term, there were four sanctuary cities, and he did nothing to stop them.

In 2005, he supported taxpayer subsidies for stem cell research and said he would maintain the status quo on abortion in Massachusetts. Now he claims to be pro life.

In 2004, he supported the Travaglini-Lees Amendment which would have created civil unions for gays in Massachusetts.

In 2002, he said he supported tough gun laws because they provided safety. He also claims to be a lifelong hunter, but a review of the four states he has lived in shows he has never held a hunting license.

In 2003, Romney refused to support Bush's tax cuts, but now he supports them. While in office he raised annual state fees by $500 million and proposed two corporate tax increases equaling $400 million per year. Plus job growth for his state was ranked 46th in the nation.

I think they are exactly right about Mitt Romney. In 2006, Romney said he supported McCain and the president on a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants, but now he is opposed to it.

Um no that’s actually not true. Romney said in 2005 that he hadn’t read the entire bill but that he thought that the provisions of the McCain bill that required illegals pay fines and back taxes were “reasonable” measures but he specifically said he didn’t endorse the legislation and wouldn’t make a decision until he had a chance to finish reviewing it (not surprising considering the length and complexity of the bill). When he finished his review, he said that he opposed the bill including specifically the provision regarding the Z-visas. A pretty reasonable approach IMO.

Simon said: "There's just no credible basis for saying that he [Obama] will be any more effective at lowering partisan temperatures than Clinton, so apart from a strike against him for sheer dishonesty, I don't see how that distinguishes him, while she at least would be competent in implementing her agenda and would be a massive "fuck you" to our enemies. If you really have to pick a Democrat this year, there's a clear choice."

Exactly. And those are all reasons for why I'm supporting Hillary. Oh, and downtownlad, there are other center-left people posting on this blog, and supporting John McCain doesn't make you center-left. However, if you are a Republican, it does make you smart, because he's the strongest candidate the GOP has for the general election.

If it weren't for the topic of USSC justices, it would be better for the Repubs to lose the election, regain the congress in 2010 as usually happens and get set for 2012. By then things will be bad enough for a better candidate to get elected

Thorley Winston said..."For people for whom abortion and gun rights are the only or the primary issues, there are fair questions to be asked [of Romney] (and from what I’ve can tell, he’s answered them)."

I'd add to that the obvious point that pro-lifers want converts. It is absolutely not a problem that Romney has changed his mind. But with that said, the concern is whether he has, i n good faith, changed his mind or whether he's pandering. Personally (and I should clarify that I'm not a Romney supporter per se), I have no reason to doubt his sincerity, I think he has changed his mind, and I think that's a good thing.

"At this point, the GOP nominating anyone but McCain is a suicide note."

Maybe.

There are a lot of Republicans who simply won't vote for him. Period. What percentage? Hard to say. It's also hard to say how many independents he can pull away from the Dems.

It is also predicated on who the Dems nominate. A party can be energized to vote for a candidate, or against one. A majority of the people who voted for Kerry were simply voting against Bush. Almost no one really liked him, and for good reason. A weaker, more unappealing candidate is hard to imagine. Hillary will energize a LOT of Republicans to hold their noses and vote for whatever candidate the Repubs nominate. I know plenty of Dems who are convinced that Hillary can't win because of this, even though they prefer her as a candidate.

Also how is one third of the country a fringe? A minority for sure, but to me a fringe is more like the Lyndon La Rouche faction. This is just more hyperbolic Bush-bashing from the NYT.

I might add that folks like downtownlad do more to harm gays than anyone with their solipsistic viewpoint and juvenile vitriolic outbursts. Talk about a bigot.

However, if you are a Republican, it does make you smart, because he's the strongest candidate the GOP has for the general election.

McCain might be the best chance the Republicans have at electing a President with a "-R" after his name, but he certainly isn't the best chance the Republicans have of electing someone who will actually support Republican political goals over Democratic ones.

I am not a McCain supporter but who has a better paper trial on Conservative judges?

McCain has been voting for them for over twenty years-what has Romney done?

Along those same lines I dislike both McCain and Romney for their petty afterblow critiques of the war-something they seem to want to pander to the Left on-but at least McCain campaigned for the second term of Bush a wartime President.

What did Romney do?

Well his direct answer to that was he was busy being governor of massachusetts.

But then on the other hand he wants you to believe he is an international superman saving the Olympics.

Ghee why could he not use some of that *star* power and charisma to help the military win the war effort?

And on top of that he's waffled around even during one of the earlier debates about jumping on and off the Iraq Study bandwagon.

McCain has said that he "supports gay marriage", but those are just weasel words. What he means is that he supports letting gay people have marriage ceremonies with no legal validity -- something which is already legal in every state. Its like saying "I support giving blacks the vote" when you mean "I support letting them vote unofficially, by telling their friends who they'd like to see in office".

Party officials were predicting a record-setting turnout. Throughout the state, party officials said they had early reports of high turnout, in predominantly white and black precincts. Several precincts in York County, on the state’s northern edge, had surpassed their complete voting totals from four years ago by early afternoon. Officials said similar turnout patterns were coming in from Aiken County, on the Georgia border.

Ya weird...I guess you are left to assume that maybe one of the counties is majority white and the other black?

Or that there's a race off, race war....seems like that's what they want you to assume.

I am not a McCain supporter but who has a better paper trial on Conservative judges? McCain has been voting for them for over twenty years-what has Romney done?

That makes no sense. McCain was a Senator; Romney was a governor and a businessman. Governors and businessmen don't get to vote on judges.

You might as well ask "who has the better track record of executive decision making"? Romney has nearly 30 years of executive experience, pretty much all of them successful; McCain has zero. The two men have had very different careers. You can't really compare them directly.

Bill Clinton's political prowess, despite his face's increasing tendency to turn red when he's angry, nevertheless remains nothing short of remarkable. Unfortunately, he's working for the wrong candidate. Hopefully, then, someone with a louder voice than I will rhetorically smack him and Hillary down when they try to spin the South Carolina results and exit polls into a simplistic commentary on race. Most Democratic South Carolinians will be voting against Hillary today. They're voting for someone who doesn't make even many of our reasonable Democratic friends cringe. And of course Edwards will do well among white voters: he's the native son, attractive to that type of "good-ol'-boy" who, despite any latent redneck tendencies, carries no ill will to any of his fellow Americans.

McCain might be the best chance the Republicans have at electing a President with a "-R" after his name, but he certainly isn't the best chance the Republicans have of electing someone who will actually support Republican political goals over Democratic ones.

I don't know if that's true, but if McCain ends up being the nominee and wins, well, from your lips to God's ear...

Didn't Romney make any judicial appointments while governor? I think he did. IIRC, there was some controversy a while ago about one of his appointees. (I could be mistaken - I'm just asking not implying).

Elsewhere on this site, I mentioned the importance of absentee ballots in the various states holding primaries on February 5. With that in mind, please note that 350,000 Florida Democrats have already voted in their primary officially scheduled for January 29. (That's about 4 times the number in 2004, when the candidates actually showed up looking for votes in the state.) 400,000 Republicans have done the same, about twice the number that did so in the high turn-out 2006 primary. If, in the end, the overall turnout is 50%, absentee voters account for 20% of the total.

A lot of passive-aggressive "speculation" on why for all his faults, beloved POW McCain is vastly superior to Romney. Or Rudy...

I don't like Mccain but I'm hoping he beats the piss out of Romney now.

I think I suddenly got overexposed to him during the last debate-just like the folks in Iowa and New Hampshire.

Suuuure you don't like McCain! And since you have peppered Althouse's Blog for the last 3 weeks I somehow doubt that the last debate was some moment of epiphany turning you to your favorite, McCain.About the only thing that is obvious is you are as smart and cunning as McCain himself....meaning...not very.

Say what you will about McCain when he changes directions you see it coming like an aircraft crrier and he owns it.

Right, no one was surprised by any of the 2 dozen backroom deals McCain has cooked up with Teddy Kennedy in Senate backrooms going back to Reagan's time that undercut a Republican position. And Bush saw all the enemy rights stuff McCain unleashed in the press against him and gave Democrats cover..

Yep, just like a slow-moving aircraft carrier...So why all the Republican base complaints about last-minute lies, treachery, parachuting in at the last minute and misleading Cornyn on his deal on Z-Visas buried in text?

And McCain doesn't "own" it. He has gone 8 months now explaining how he really didn't want Amnesty..because he wants a small fine in return for 12 million illegals to stay and work any job they want with full rights other than a vote. Yep. Just like opening all the doors in a jail isn't really Amnesty as long as you say the inmates "paid" with some time served...

The New York Times cemented it's stand as out-of-touch with mainstream America in it's "give-only-half-an-inch" whiny editorial endorsing John McCain.

The epitome of ridiculousness is captured in the editorial's statement:

A genuine war hero among Republicans who proclaim their zeal to be commander in chief, Mr. McCain argues passionately that a country’s treatment of prisoners in the worst of times says a great deal about its character.

The fact that the Times cannot bring itself to proclaim john McCain a genuine war hero to all Americans disqualifies it from making any recommendation on this country's security and military. Times Publisher Sulzberger's well-known antipathy for the United States military has pushed his editorial board into a position for which they should hang their heads in shame.

Downtownlad is a breath of fresh air when compared to racist Cederford, anti-gay bigot Irrelevant and that moronic Middleclassguy. I come here for the poetry, prose and pictures; you guys come here to pollute the joint. Can you find another hobby, please? How about cleaning your arsenals of loaded weapons more frequently? By all means, don't trip!

You only come here to spew your vitriolic hatred of regular, normal, sane people. You hate anyone who does not resemble the guy who stares back at you in the mirror. You are a truly self loathing little squib.

I forget the Latin phrase, but in ancient Rome there was a law that allowed the head of the household- the man- to kill any member of his family for certain slights. Slaves were excluded. The Romans were truly civilized. Today we would call that post natal abortion. You are a perfect candidate. I’ll bet mummy and dada wish it were legal. Might be something worth fighting for.

Is he? I hadn't noticed. I thought he was basically a live-and-let-live kind of guy, but I tend to ignore the endless and fruitless conversations dtl thrives on, and don't read the anti-semite at all, so for all I know he could be a raging bigot. But I doubt that. Depends on your definition of bigot, I guess. Some people think anyone who disagrees with them is a bigot.

There is absolutely NO evidence that McCain will appoint conservative judges. McCain has appointed a grand total of zero judges during his life. And before you say "oh, but he voted for conservative judges", I'd like to point out that he voted "yea" for every Supreme Court Justice, including Breyer, Ginsburg, and Souter.

We have no indication that he would appoint conservative judges, and it is certainly the case that he himself is anything but a strict constructionist.

You cannot seriously doubt McCain appointing Conservative judges. that he has been consistent on for over twenty years. You have to give him that much.

The only consistent thing about his record on judges is that he consistently defers to the Executive branch regardless of the political leanings of the current President.

Here is a quote: "In a November 2005 interview with the Globe, Romney described immigration proposals by McCain and others as "quite different" from amnesty, because they required illegal immigrants to register with the government, work for years, pay taxes, not take public benefits, and pay a fine before applying for citizenship.

"That's very different than amnesty, where you literally say, 'OK, everybody here gets to stay,' " Romney said in the interview. "It's saying you could work your way into becoming a legal resident of the country by working here without taking benefits and then applying and then paying a fine."

Romney did not specifically endorse McCain's bill, saying he had not yet formulated a full position on immigration. But he did speak approvingly of efforts by McCain and Bush to solve the nation's immigration crisis, calling them "reasonable proposals."

Romney also said in the interview that it was not "practical or economic for the country" to deport the estimated 12 million immigrants living in the US illegally. "These people contribute in many cases to our economy and to our society," he said. "In some cases, they do not. But that's a whole group we're going to have to determine how to deal with.""

The other two things I mentioned are true: He waited until he was leaving office to allow local authorities to go after illegals and he did not try to confront the 4 amnesty cities. Given his other changes, it just made sense that he was doing it for calculation, but on this this bill it does sound reasonable that he spoke too soon and changed his mind after learning more about it.